selfmadecities_unece
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/18/2019 SelfMadeCities_UNECE
1/139
SELF-MADE CITIES In search of sustainable solutions for informal settlements
in the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe region
U N I T E D N A T I O N S E C O N O M I C C O M M I S S I O N F O R E U R O P E
-
8/18/2019 SelfMadeCities_UNECE
2/139
-
8/18/2019 SelfMadeCities_UNECE
3/139
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe
SELF-MADE CITIESIn Search of Sustainable Solutions for Informal Settlements
in the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Region
UNITED NATIONS
New York and Geneva, 2009
-
8/18/2019 SelfMadeCities_UNECE
4/139
NOTE
Symbols of United Nations documents are composed of capital letters combined
with figures. Mention of such a symbol indicates a reference to a United Nationsdocument.
The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication
do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat
of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area,
or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.
ECE/HBP/155
UNITED NATIONS PUBLICATIONS
Sales No. E.09.II.E.9
ISBN 978-92-1-117005-4
Copyright © United Nations, 2009
All rights reserved
UNECE Information Service Phone: +41 (0) 22 917 44 44
Palais des Nations Fax: +41 (0) 22 917 05 05CH-1211 Geneva 10 E-mail: [email protected]
Switzerland Website: http://www.unece.org
-
8/18/2019 SelfMadeCities_UNECE
5/139
Acknowledgments
Managing teamTeam leader: Christina von Schweinichen
Project manager: Paola Deda
Editor: Christopher Edgar
Administrative assistant: Evelina Rioukhina
Authors and contributors
Authors: Sasha Tsenkova, Faculty of Environmental Design, University of Calgary
Contributing authors: Chryssy Potsiou, National Technical University of Athens
Anna Badyina, School of Geography and the Environment, University of Oxford
Contributors to boxes: Emanuele Strano, Oxford Institute of Sustainable
Development, Oxford Brookes University
Cecilia Serin, Development Studies Institute, London School of Economics and
Political Sciences
Layout: Philippe Terrigeol
Cover design: Jakob Krupka
A general thank you to all individuals and organizations that have contributed to
this publication with their work and information.
iii
-
8/18/2019 SelfMadeCities_UNECE
6/139
-
8/18/2019 SelfMadeCities_UNECE
7/139
v
ForewordMore than 50 million people in 15 member States of the United Nation Economic
Commission for Europe (UNECE) live in informal settlements. Rapid urbanization,
poverty and lack of access to land and ownership, in addition to limited or no socialhousing, have led citizens to build their homes illegally under very poor environmental
and social conditions. The phenomenon is growing at an exponential rate in Eastern
Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia, and calls for urgent political, legal and planning
solutions.
Over the last 20 years, a number of UNECE countries with economies in transition
have had to undertake dramatic policy changes, including land reforms and the
massive reallocation of State and private assets.
The economic problems and social stresses related to the transition to new
housing and land management systems have added to the many other challenges. In
some cases, the lack of a clear and transparent scheme for land tenure and property
rights has compounded the problems of already poor administrative and cadastre
systems, and hence contributed to the formation of informal settlements.
This study provides a general overview of the phenomenon of informal settlements
in the UNECE region and identifies policy responses to address these challenges.
Emphasis is given to practices that can facilitate access to affordable land and housing
and improve the livelihoods of residents in informal settlements, and in general tostrategies that stand to better the physical, social, economic and environmental
situation of informal settlements.
The study has four specific objectives:
To describe the factors that influence informal settlement development and toa.
define the main characteristics of different types of settlements;
To review the major constraints in the existing housing, land managementb.
and planning systems that exacerbate the problems of informal settlements,and thus provide an analysis of social, economic and political issues that
have a direct influence on the urban development patterns in countries;
-
8/18/2019 SelfMadeCities_UNECE
8/139
SELF-M ADE C ITIES IN SEARCH OF SUSTAINABLE SOLUTIONS FOR INFORMAL SETTLEMENTS IN THE UNECE REGION
vi
To provide an overview of the different policy approaches and actions thatc.
address the issue of informal settlements which have been implemented at the
international, national and local levels, ranging from regularization to upgrading
to resettlement;
To provide some general guidance that could support decision makers andd.
planners in addressing the challenge of informal settlements.
The analysis here highlights major achievements in addressing the multiple
dimensions of informal settlements in cities across the region. The conclusions draw
attention to alternatives for local, national and global action and provide guidance on
how to face the challenges that informal settlements pose.
This study is the outcome of the joint work of the Committee on Housing and
Land Management and the Working Party on Land Administration, which took placein a series of meetings, dedicated workshops and research activities.
I trust that the study will assist policymakers, decision makers, planners and local
authorities in their efforts to improve living conditions in informal settlements and/
or find alternative solutions. As the first study of its kind in the region, it is hardly an
endpoint for the work on informal settlements by Committee and the Working Party.
Rather, it is an initial step towards the development of practical and capacity-building
activities in this area, which will facilitate the implementation of sound policies and
actions.
Ján Kubiš
Executive Secretary
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe
-
8/18/2019 SelfMadeCities_UNECE
9/139
vii
PrefaceI was born in Tirana, my parents too. I thought that living in Tirana city was my
privilege, and that everyone, like me, was born there. One day I was walking in the
streets of my city with a friend of mine. She came from Kukes, a city in the north-eastof Albania. While we were walking, I noticed that she was greeting numerous people
in the streets, but I didn’t recognize any of them. I realized that Tirana was no longer
only mine. Tirana nowadays is for all those that have come from north, south, east and
west of Albania. They might not have a house in the centre of Tirana, they might live
kilometres away, on the periphery – the so-called “informal areas” – but they work in
Tirana. From their homes, spread over thousands of hectares, they flow like streams
that join a river and then disappear again into the chaos of the city.
Probably one third of the population lives in informal housing in Albania. Informalsettlements occupy 40,000 ha of land, corresponding to approximately 6–8 billion
United States dollars worth of investment, considered to be “dead capital”. These
areas have become satellite cities, described with various terms: “spread cities”, “città
diffuse”, “generic cities”, “divided cities”, “irregular housing”, “illegal settlements”, “un-
authorized housing”, “informal developments”, etc. The variety of expressions for these
informal yet complex solutions pose exciting challenges to researchers, sociologists,
economists and politicians.
In the immense expanse of Bathore, Kamza and Paskuqan (three major informalsettlements around Tirana), only houses and narrow streets are visible if seen from
above; there are no other landmarks, no parks, squares or playgrounds, no shopping
centres, schools or kindergartens – only houses and narrow streets, most of which
are unpaved. From closer, it looks like a giant dormitory, hosting people at night and
bidding them farewell in the early morning: children hand-in-hand with their parents
running to the bus station in the main street, others on bicycles, some on motorcycles
and cars, all going in one direction – towards Tirana. Owners of shops, restaurants
and small businesses, construction workers, hotel workers, street cleaners, waiters,
public administrators, mechanics, carpenters – all these informal dwellers invest theirwork time in the city. They work for the city, but they don’t live there. In the morning
and late afternoon they commute from the “dormitories” to the city and back. This is
-
8/18/2019 SelfMadeCities_UNECE
10/139
SELF-M ADE C ITIES IN SEARCH OF SUSTAINABLE SOLUTIONS FOR INFORMAL SETTLEMENTS IN THE UNECE REGION
viii
the first and most visible impact of these secondary cities that have grown around the
big ones. Transit to and from the city is chaotic due to poor road and car conditions
and the lack of a proper transportation system, which increases traffic jams, pollution
and noise.
They are considered illegal occupants because they have occupied the land
illegally, subdivided the land illegally, built illegally and consume water and energy
illegally. They work illegally, too.
Last year, I brought my students to one of the informal areas of Tirana: Lapraka, in
the proximity of an ex-industrial zone. They were surprised by the size of the houses –
much bigger than their city apartments – and by the presence of spacious and green
gardens, missing from their city apartments. The houses were surrounded by the high
walls and fences that divide two different worlds: the one inside and the one outside.
Inside, everything is tidy and well organized; outside, there are open-air sewers, waterpipes on top of the sewers, labyrinths of wires accessing electricity from the existing
line, and mud or dust covering the narrow streets.
Informal settlements have been the subject of several studies and projects,
yet a number of questions remain unanswered. How is it possible that people can
obtain illegally what is not accessible through legal means? Should these “secondary
cities” be ignored, or should the problems they pose be addressed? Should these
settlements be demolished or legalized?
The phenomenon is so complex that solutions cannot be generic andcomprehensive.
This UNECE study will provide you with some of the tools necessary to address the
problems related to informal settlements. It shows, for the first time, that the problem
of informal housing is not typical only of poor countries, but affects many UNECE
member States as well and can be exacerbated by the bureaucratic procedures that
exist even in wealthier European Union countries. The study will add value to the
work so far undertaken in the subregion of South-Eastern Europe and will highlight
the efforts of some Governments to address the difficulties and challenges related to
informal settlements.Doris Andoni
Chairperson
Committee on Housing and Land Management
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe
-
8/18/2019 SelfMadeCities_UNECE
11/139
PREFACE
ix
This publication describes and elaborates on the phenomenon of illegal settlements
in the UNECE region that came into being for a number of reasons, including poverty
and the search for shelter and labour opportunities.
The more one goes through the study, the more worrisome and at the same
time challenging the subject becomes. Worrisome, because the size and geographicalextension of the problem of unplanned or illegal development and its consequences
for the lives of so many people in the region becomes evident. Challenging, because it
is very clear from the outset that there is no “one-size-fits-all” solution when it comes
to informal settlements.
This study cannot address the numerous different realities, but it does show,
despite the very different circumstances in the countries across the UNECE region,
that there are common goals and approaches targeted at the improvement of the
current situation. It also identifies a number of tools addressing spatial planning andthe legalization of informal settlements and social housing, to either mitigate existing
problems or prevent informal developments whenever possible.
UNECE has been addressing with the establishment and maintenance of
land administration systems since the early 1990s, when many countries of the
region started a transition process towards market-oriented economies. As land
administrations, current and accurate spatial information on land and healthy land
markets are of vital importance for sustainable spatial planning and development,
this study assumes a certain urgency from the perspective of land administration. Of
critical importance in this context are well-balanced land policies developed within theframework of good governance, including land management strategies and formal
property or tenure rights. These will enable planning and sustainable development at
the national, regional or local levels.
The study shows that it is necessary to approach the issue of informal development
in a integrated manner, one that involves various disciplines and perspectives and
includes both urban infrastructure and rural areas. As solving the problem of informal
settlements supports the achievement of the United Nations Millennium Development
Goals of poverty eradication and environmental sustainability, UNECE will closely follow
the issue in the future and will continue to bring the perspectives of land managementto the attention of policymakers.
I trust that this study will reach policymakers and stakeholders operating in
planning, land-use management and regional development. I strongly believe that it
will substantially contribute to raising awareness of the challenges posed by informal
settlements, and will enable policy dialogue and promote sustainable land use across
the UNECE region.
Peter Creuzer
Chairman
Working Party on Land Administration
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe
-
8/18/2019 SelfMadeCities_UNECE
12/139
-
8/18/2019 SelfMadeCities_UNECE
13/139
xi
Table of ContentsINTRODUCTION Informal Settlements - A Complex Phenomenon . . .1
CHAPTER 1 Informal Settlements in the United Nations EconomicCommission for Europe Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
1. Informal settlements and the global agenda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
2. Typology and formation processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
A. Upgraded squatter settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
B. Illegal subdivisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
C. Settlements for vulnerable groups. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
D. Substandard inner-city housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 E. Squatter settlements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19
3. Location and size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23
4. Factors influencing the development of informal settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25
A. Economic and social change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27
B. Urban change: urbanization and migration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29
C. The crisis of displaced people and refugees. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31
CHAPTER 2 The Economic, Social and Environmental
Challenges of Informal Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35
1. The economic challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35
2. The social challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37
3. The environmental challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40
CHAPTER 3 Changes in Governance and Informal
Settlement Formation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43
1. Constraints in the land management and property registration system . . . . .452. Constraints in the planning and approval system. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49
3. Constraints in the housing provision system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55
-
8/18/2019 SelfMadeCities_UNECE
14/139
SELF-M ADE C ITIES IN SEARCH OF SUSTAINABLE SOLUTIONS FOR INFORMAL SETTLEMENTS IN THE UNECE REGION
xii
CHAPTER 4 Towards inclusive urban development: An opportunity to be seized . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61
1. Formalization and legalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62
2. Regularization and upgrading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .693. Resettlement and reallocation: an issue for public housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75
4. Alternative housing systems for informal settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81
5. Addressing the challenge of substandard inner-city housing:
urban renewal and regeneration strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .82
CHAPTER 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .89
Policy principles and guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .89
Annexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .103
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .107
List of figures, tables and boxes
Figure 1: Typology of upgraded settlements and illegal suburban land subdivisions . . . . . . .15
Figure 2: Substandard inner-city housing and settlements for vulnerable groups. . . . . . . . . .17
Figure 3: Typology of squatter settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21
Figure 4: Urbanization in the UNECE region, 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30
Figure 5: Disadvantaged groups in Belgrade. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38Figure 6: Homeownership in the UNECE region, 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56
Figure 7: Households experiencing financial difficulties due to housing costs, 2004 . . . . . . .58
Figure 8: Social housing: existing stock and rates of new construction, 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . .59
Figure 9: Informal settlement diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .90
Table 1: Typology of informal settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
Table 2: Matrix of informal settlement types. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24
Table 3: Refugees and displaced persons in the UNECE region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32
Table 4: Infrastructure deficit in informal settlements in Tirana and Belgrade (percentage) . . .41
Box 1: Upgrading informal settlements: Kalugerica, Serbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
Box 2: City profile: Milan, Italy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
Box 3: Illegal subdivisions in Naples, Italy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
Box 4: The housing crisis of refugees and displaced people in Azerbaijan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16
Box 5: Informal settlements in Tirana. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20
Box 6: Housing exclusion: the case of Roma communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20
Box 7: City profile: Bishkek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22Box 8: The slumification of housing in Russian cities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25
Box 9: City profile: Prijedor, Bosnia and Herzegovina. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32
-
8/18/2019 SelfMadeCities_UNECE
15/139
T ABLE OF CONTENTS
xiii
Box 10: Provision of social infrastructure and community facilities in Kamza, Albania . . . . . .39
Box 11: Environmental challenges in the peri-urban areas of Bishkek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41
Box 12: Planning and land management constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44
Box 13: Planning constraints in Montenegro . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50
Box 14: Difficulties in coping with illegal construction in Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52Box 15: City profile: Belgrade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53
Box 16: Legalization in Tirana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67
Box 17: Legalization of illegal construction in informal settlements in Croatia and Armenia . .68
Box 18: Legalizing informal settlements in the context of rapid urbanization in Turkey . . . . . .69
Box 19: Bringing citizens’ voices into formal urban decision-making . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71
Box 20: Regularization of the Gorica Settlement in Bosnia and Herzegovina . . . . . . . . . . . . .72
Box 21: Challenges in legalizing and upgrading of informal settlements in Greece . . . . . . . .74
Box 23: Special rehousing programme in the Lisbon and Porto metropolitan areas. . . . . . . .79
Box 24: Resettlement of chabolistas in Madrid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80
Box 25: Dutch urban regeneration: focus on deprived neighborhoods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .86
Box 26: Vienna’s urban renewal programme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .87
Acronyms
EECCA: Eastern Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia
IDPs: Internally displaced persons
NGO: Non-governmental organization
UNECE: United Nations Economic Commission for EuropeUN-HABITAT: United Nations Human Settlements Programme
UNHCR: United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
-
8/18/2019 SelfMadeCities_UNECE
16/139
-
8/18/2019 SelfMadeCities_UNECE
17/139
xv
Executive Summary The purpose of this study is to provide a general overview of the phenomenon
of informal settlements in the UNECE region, to identify policy responses to address
these challenges and to highlight results achieved. Emphasis is given to practicesthat can facilitate access to affordable land and housing and improve the livelihoods
of residents in informal settlements, and in general to strategies that can better the
physical, social, economic and environmental situation of informal settlements.
THE PROBLEM
The study has revealed that the problem is significant in more than 20 countries
in the UNECE region and affects the lives of over 50 million people. The critical factors
affecting the formation of informal settlements are related to several major interrelated
changes: (a) rapid urbanization and influx of people into select urban areas; (b)
unrealistic or insufficient planning regulations and inefficient land administration; (c)
wars and natural disasters leading to the massive movement of people to places of
opportunity and safety; and (d) poverty and the lack of low cost housing and serviced
land.
In particular, poverty and social exclusion are key drivers of the formation of
illegal settlements in most countries. While public expenditure for subsidized housing
and urban rehabilitation is spiraling downward, the need to address the social andeconomic challenges in these areas is growing. Furthermore, pressure to reduce
government deficits and redirect spending priorities towards more productive
sectors of the economy also influence the ability of different countries to undertake
comprehensive measures to address informal settlements. As a result, even Western
European countries have about six per cent of their urban dwellers living in extremely
precarious conditions, often in rundown inner-city areas, which are not necessarily
illegal but which exhibit poverty, social exclusion and housing deprivation. In low-
income countries in particular, high unemployment, poverty and social polarization
adversely affect people’s ability to house themselves.
-
8/18/2019 SelfMadeCities_UNECE
18/139
SELF-M ADE C ITIES IN SEARCH OF SUSTAINABLE SOLUTIONS FOR INFORMAL SETTLEMENTS IN THE UNECE REGION
xvi
Inadequate housing is a central issue for informal settlements and is thus essential
to introducing sustainable housing policy. However, a narrow technical understanding
of housing policy cannot provide a comprehensive framework to tackle the multiple
problems of informal settlements; the complex relationships between housing and
other aspects of human life must be clearly understood and a broader role of housingpolicy in addressing disadvantages of informal settlements should be developed.
There is generally a need for a new concept of housing policy. Such a policy must be
committed to social equity and to improving the standards of living of disadvantaged
groups.
Social inequality needs to be seen as an obstacle to sustainable urban development
and to cities successfully competing in the local and global arenas. Social justice
must be a central item on the holistic housing policy agenda and a precondition for
sustainable urban development. One of the necessary approaches is to make housingpolicy an effective mechanism in accumulating asset wealth for the poor, through
ensuring equal access and securing rights to the resources essential to supporting a
decent life.
EXISTING POLICY FRAMEWORK
The challenge of informal settlements is widely recognized in international and
national sustainable development programmes. There have been a number of
important policies documents related to the issue of informal settlements both globallyand in the UNECE region including the Global Strategy for Shelter to the Year 2000
and the Millennium Development Goals established by the United Nations Millennium
Declaration in 2000. For example, upgrading informal settlements is critical step on
the path to achieving its target 4 for Goal 7 (by 2020, to have achieved a significant
improvement in the lives of at least 100 million slum dwellers).
In translating the Millennium Development Goals into the context of the UNECE
region, a special UNECE report provided a comprehensive framework that includes
the following key clusters: (a) an enabling environment for pro-poor and sustained
growth; (b) the equity issue; (c) distribution of assets and opportunities, d) distribution
of income and social protection; (e) fostering employment and promoting human
capital; (f) an enabling external environments; and (g) environmental sustainability
(UNECE, 2006).
The Vienna Declaration on National and Regional Policy Programmes regarding
Informal Settlements in South-Eastern Europe1 established the general characteristics
of informal settlements while also taking account of the diversity of the phenomenon
in different national contexts. The need to tackle informal settlements in a sustainable
way and to prevent their future growth has also been recognized. This is based on a1 South-Eastern Europe typically includes the following countries: Albania, Bosnia and Herzogovina,
Croatia, Greece, Kosovo (Serbia), Montenegro, Serbia and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.
-
8/18/2019 SelfMadeCities_UNECE
19/139
E XECUTIVE SUMMARY
xvii
better understanding of the right of each urban citizen to be an equal member of the
community. A new commitment with respect to “sustainable urban management, good
governance, urban social and economic integration of informal settlements within the
overall city structure” has been made. The Vienna Declaration highlighted the need
for an adequate legal and institutional environment and invited effective policies andprogrammes to regularize informal settlements in a sustainable way by the year 2015
(Vienna Declaration, 2004).
In 2006, the UNECE Committee on Housing and Land Management adopted
the Ministerial Declaration on Social and Economic Changes in Distressed Urban
Areas. This Declaration promotes the provision of adequate housing and identifies
the improvement of informal settlements as a main priority. In in-depth discussions in
2007, the Committee emphasized the need for a comprehensive approach across the
UNECE region that would integrate urban planning, housing and land managementpolicies (ECE/HBP/2007/7, ECE/HBP/WP.7/2007/8).
KEY FINDINGS
Types of informal settlements and policy approaches
Informal settlements include the following types: (a) squatter settlements on public
or private land; (b) settlements for refugees and vulnerable people; (c) upgraded
squatter settlements; (d) illegal suburban land subdivisions on private or public land,
often on the urban fringe; and (e) overcrowded, dilapidated housing without adequate
facilities, in city centres or densely urbanized areas.
Many countries in the region have attempted to address the challenges of informal
settlements in the last few decades through control over territorial development, land
management and more systematic building inspection. The search for policy solutions
to address illegal settlements has been multi-faceted and multi-dimensional. Various
projects and urban development programmes have been implemented in countries
such as Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain in the last 20 years. Although current
needs may differ, these countries can be an important source of good practices forothers in the UNECE region facing similar challenges. In some transition countries,
with a recent rise of the intensity of the phenomenon, efforts have focused on the
general improvement of land registration systems and property cadastre to allow more
effective land policy implementation. While these measures have not explicitly targeted
the problem of informal settlements, they have generally provided a better foundation
for urban planning, land management and building regulations.
The following major types of policy interventions are reviewed in the report:
(a) legalization; (b) regularization and upgrading; (c) the development of alternativehousing systems; (d) resettlement and reallocation; and (e) addressing the challenges
of substandard inner-city housing.
-
8/18/2019 SelfMadeCities_UNECE
20/139
SELF-M ADE C ITIES IN SEARCH OF SUSTAINABLE SOLUTIONS FOR INFORMAL SETTLEMENTS IN THE UNECE REGION
xviii
Drivers of change
In general, the problems of informal settlements have not been systematically
addressed and responsibilities remain fragmented. Informal settlements and residents
have often been neglected in broader urban and social development practices. Somecommunities in informal settlements have opted for self-organization, these initiatives
often being backed by the media, local government, international organizations and
non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Even if these cases are limited, the process
of self-organization has had many positive outcomes. Currently, however, there is
a global call for urgent yet sustainable interventions vis-à-vis informal settlements.
Governments are translating relevant global strategies into specific national contexts.
Higher-level government is increasingly seen as key enabler of change. There is also
a commitment to ensure equal access to basic human rights as well as fairness in
wealth redistribution. Public-private partnerships are often at the centre of decision-making. A strong tendency towards mobilizing local skills and knowledge can also be
noticed.
Successful interventions
As it has been mentioned, various urban development projects have been
undertaken in the last 20 years. The solutions range from legalization and regularization
to the provision of essential social and engineering infrastructure, to resettlement
programmes in social housing and to inclusion in formal urban planning. It has become
evident that it is only through adopting comprehensive integrated solutions that better
outcomes of informal settlement interventions can be achieved. Successful responses
should be based on acknowledging the varied forces behind different types of informal
settlements and the need to apply a range of policy tools (social, economic, spatial
planning) simultaneously. For such integration to be effective, responses must be
framed by long-term strategies to achieve wider societal goals based on the principles
of sustainability and social fairness. Equal, affordable and safe access to such basic
human rights as land and shelter are the preconditions for the development of
sustainable places and communities.Obstacles
A number of problems have prevented existing programmes for informal settlements
from achieving successful outcomes. Insufficient financial and human resources,
burdensome regulatory rules, unclear administrative procedures and unrealistic
standards have all been reported as major barriers. In some cases, responses have
been reactive and hostile rather than comprehensive, strategic and proactive. The
failure of many programmes can be attributed to a misunderstanding of the deeper
causes underlying the formation of informal settlements, e.g. social inequality andunequal redistribution of wealth, as well as to a limited application of such policy tools
as integrated land management, e.g. land administration (multi-purpose cadastre) and
-
8/18/2019 SelfMadeCities_UNECE
21/139
E XECUTIVE SUMMARY
xix
spatial planning. Land administration and spatial planning are fundamental land tools
and they should be used in coordination to each other to achieve the best results.
Responses to the housing question often remain very technical and the
development of the housing sector has not been given the priority it deserves within
the context of national economic and social development. The proper coordination
between housing policy and other policies has yet to be developed.
An enabling environment for the market to work efficiently is also lacking in several
countries. In these countries, it has to operate within an obsolete legal and policy
framework and administrative structure.
The belief in the market as a one-size-fits-all solution often further marginalizes
alternative developments and reinforces the problems of informal settlements, especially
when applied in countries with a general legal framework for land development anda relevant administrative structure that reflect the land policies and practices of the
previous century.
Lessons for policy consideration
It is important to consider a number of important initiatives when translating the
informal settlements agenda into local contexts. Better outcomes have been possible
because of:
Changes in policymaking towards a strategic vision and planning for short-,a. medium- and long-term solutions;
Creation of an effective governance framework that comprises key actorsb.
across different fields and empowers voices of marginalized groups;
Establishment of a platform for a dialogue between key actors, as well asc.
effective public-private partnerships;
A willingness to draw on existing practices and learn from other experiencesd.
to support the policy process, and an eagerness for continuous learning and
knowledge-sharing;
A new commitment to fighting social inequality and establishing social justicee.
and transparency;
A thorough analysis of the major causes affecting residents’ livingf.
conditions;
Establishment of efficient linkages between major land tools for landg.
management, e.g. housing, land administration and spatial planning;
Development of urban strategies that focus on the settlement level but takingh.due account of the importance of the settlement’s connection to broader
social, economic, environmental and urban development processes.
-
8/18/2019 SelfMadeCities_UNECE
22/139
SELF-M ADE C ITIES IN SEARCH OF SUSTAINABLE SOLUTIONS FOR INFORMAL SETTLEMENTS IN THE UNECE REGION
xx
RECOMMENDATIONS AND KEY PRINCIPLES
Based on the study, the following key policy principles are proposed to guide1.
informal settlement interventions:
There is no “one-size-fits-all” solution to address the problems of informal2.settlements and the choice of policy tools should be comprehensive and
should consider the specific socio-cultural context.
Policies to address informal settlements must be based on the understanding3.
that they are spatial manifestations of social inequality and on a comprehension
of the complex and multidimensional nature of social inequality. Effective
responses to multiple disadvantages within informal settlements should
integrate different social-supporting measures.
The adoption of an integrated national strategy to address social inequality4.
and unequal spatial redistribution of wealth is fundamental to better policy
outcomes for informal settlements.
Joint and inclusive approaches to governance would ensure better results in5.
relation to informal settlements interventions.
Strategies for informal settlements must be based on a clear understanding6.
of the nature of deprivation and should pursue an integrated, people-focused
and place-based approach.
Housing, land and spatial planning policies must always be a key focus7.
for informal settlement policy interventions, and should constitute part of
an integrated national strategy to address poverty reduction and general
economic development.
It is important to formulate a national strategy for housing that supports8.
marginalized communities.
Informal settlements must be part of a well-designed system of land9. management committed to providing people with affordable access to
serviced land.
There must exist a pro-poor spatial planning system based on the principles10.
of sustainable development.
People’s knowledge and access to information should be improved.11.
Spatial planning and zoning regulation are necessary. Recording of land uses12.
should be made transparent and available to all.
Urban administration policies should meet current social, environmental and13.
economic needs.
-
8/18/2019 SelfMadeCities_UNECE
23/139
E XECUTIVE SUMMARY
xxi
Methodology and references
This analytical assessment is based on existing information from government
reports and draws on comparative evaluations on the topic carried out by major
international organizations such as the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner
for Refugees (UNHCR), the United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-
HABITAT), the World Bank (Europe and Central Asia) and international research
institutes. It also draws information from the UNECE country housing profiles and
land administration reviews, as well as statistics from officially published sources of
information and international databases. Papers presented at FIG2 Commission 3/
UNECE workshop on informal settlements (“Spatial Information Management: Towards
Legalizing Informal Urban Development”, 2007) were particularly helpful to the author
in highlighting the different approaches in the region.In addition to secondary sources of information, a special survey was designed
by the UNECE secretariat and sent to over 50 government officials and policy experts
representing the countries taking part in the UNECE Committee on Housing and Land
Management and Working Party on Land Administration. A list of countries where
there are significant informal settlement challenges and/or programmes was created.
The survey collected information on several important themes:
The phenomenon of informal settlement development: the quantitative anda.
qualitative assessment and factors affecting the process (e.g. limitations inthe planning system, land administration and access to affordable housing);
Policy approaches and strategies to address the problems (e.g. legal actsb.
that regularize and upgrade informal settlements, and the city or national
programmes in place);
Case studies of successful intervention and good practices with an emphasisc.
on results achieved.
It is important to note that both the survey and this study do not focus on problemsof illegal construction, e.g. additions, illegal changes to existing legal buildings and
other modifications that exceed building or planning permits. The emphasis here
is on clusters of illegal developments establishing informal settlement patterns and
neighbourhoods.
2 International Federation of Surveyors.
-
8/18/2019 SelfMadeCities_UNECE
24/139
-
8/18/2019 SelfMadeCities_UNECE
25/139
1
Introduction
Informal Settlements: A Complex Phenomenon
Informal settlements are often characterized as “illegal” residential formations
lacking basic infrastructure, security of tenure, adequate housing, etc. However such
an interpretation is only the tip of the iceberg, underneath which lay the various and
complex socio-cultural processes that lead to informal settlements’ formation. In order
to evaluate the phenomenon, it is therefore necessary to analyze the underlying socio-
cultural context.
Informal settlements have always been a persistent feature of urbanization. Recent
economic changes within the UNECE region and the break-up of the Soviet Union in
particular resulted in welfare state retrenchment, the privatization of public responsibilities
and the commodification of different sectors. Such major administrative and economic
reforms were not accompanied by necessary contemporary land administration tools,
e.g. efficient legislation and legal reform, appropriate land valuation, property taxation,
measures for smooth economic development within the countries, transparency in land
development procedures and real estate markets, and updated land administration
and planning regulations. Related economic problems such as the lack of sustainable
policies for creating jobs and reducing unemployment, as well as inefficient banking
systems for mortgage lending in many Eastern European countries and lack of social
housing policy, have resulted in dispossession and impoverishment of large strata of
the population and growing socio-economic disparities. Soaring social inequalities
have had a significant impact on the spatial patterns of cities, whose populations have
found themselves trapped by a chronic lack of the necessary resources for adequate
housing. Regardless of the type, settlements built with poor security of land tenure
and without any planning regulations or building controls are considered as informal
and need upgrading. Similar examples can be found worldwide.
The negative spatial manifestation of informal settlements can be either reinforced
by inappropriate policies or successfully mitigated through proactive policies. A limitedunderstanding of the problems of informal settlements raises the risk of failure to
achieve the intended results.
-
8/18/2019 SelfMadeCities_UNECE
26/139
2
SELF-M ADE C ITIES IN SEARCH OF SUSTAINABLE SOLUTIONS FOR INFORMAL SETTLEMENTS IN THE UNECE REGION
Informal settlements are mainly viewed through the perspective of “housing
problems”. Indeed, the development of proactive housing policy should be considered
as a key element in informal settlement transformation. Housing policy, however,
should be considered comprehensively and not in narrow technical definitions. The
complex relationships between housing and other aspects of human life must beclearly understood and a broader role of housing policy in addressing disadvantages
of informal settlements should be developed. There is a general need to design new
concepts in housing policy. Social justice must be a major factor and a precondition
for sustainable urban development. A necessity is to make housing policy an effective
mechanism in accumulating asset wealth for the dispossessed, through ensuring
equal access to the rights to land and resources essential to leading a decent life.
-
8/18/2019 SelfMadeCities_UNECE
27/139
3
CHAPTER 1
Informal Settlements in the United Nations
Economic Commission for Europe Region
Informal settlements and the global agenda1.
The challenge of informal settlements is widely recognized in international and
national programmes fostering sustainable development. The second United Nations
Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat II, Istanbul, Turkey, 3–14 June 1996) was
a key historical moment signaling a new pathway for long-term policy development.
A comprehensive vision and broad policy agendas previously endorsed by the New
Urban Agenda and the Global Strategy for Shelter were reaffirmed. Furthermore,
chapter 7 of Agenda 21 introduced the idea of sustainable development in application
to human settlements. This signaled a transition from fragmented policy responses
towards a more comprehensive policy agenda.
The UN-Habitat Agenda adopted in 1996 and the Declaration on Cities and Other
Human Settlements in the New Millennium adopted by a special session of the United
Nations General Assembly in 2001 reaffirmed the commitment of Governments to
ensure that “Everyone will have adequate shelter that is healthy, safe, secure, accessible
and affordable and that includes basic services, facilities and amenities, and will enjoyfreedom from discrimination in housing and legal security of tenure” (UN Habitat,
2001). To achieve this fundamental goal an emphasis was placed on collaboration
between public and private actors and institutions, as well as the identification of
“enabling strategies”.
Within the UNECE region, the Council of Europe has emphasized the importance
of the “enabling framework” for housing policies of European Union (EU) Member
States. In the Revised European Social Charter of 1996 (Art 31), a more concrete
commitment is advocated: “With a view to ensuring the effective exercise of the rightto housing, the Parties undertake to take measures designed: to promote access
to housing of an adequate standard; to prevent and reduce homelessness with a
-
8/18/2019 SelfMadeCities_UNECE
28/139
SELF-M ADE C ITIES IN SEARCH OF SUSTAINABLE SOLUTIONS FOR INFORMAL SETTLEMENTS IN THE UNECE REGION
4
view to its gradual elimination; to make the price of housing accessible to those
without adequate resources”. Furthermore, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the
European Union of 2000 acknowledges the right to property, social security and social
assistance. According to its article 34.3: “In order to combat social exclusion and
poverty, the Union recognizes and respects the right to social and housing assistanceso as to ensure a decent existence for all those who lack sufficient resources”.
In this context, the UNECE Committee on Housing and Land Management
adopted a Ministerial Declaration on Social and Economic Changes in Distressed
Urban Areas (2006) to promote the provision of adequate housing, and identified
the improvement of informal settlements as a priority. In recent in-depth discussions,
the Committee emphasized the need for a comprehensive approach across the
UNECE region, integrating urban planning, housing and land management policies
(ECE/HBP/2007/7, ECE/HBP/WP.7/2007/8).
On the subregional level, the Vienna Declaration on National and Regional Policy
Programmes on Informal Settlements in South-Eastern Europe identifies the issue as a
priority and invites policies to legalize and improve informal settlements in a sustainable
way. It argues that the prevention of future settlements’ formation is critical through
sustainable urban management, principles of good governance and capacity-building
(Vienna Declaration, 2004).3 In response to the global call for action, Governments in
the UNECE region have developed action plans and various programmes to address
informal settlements while recognizing the diversity of housing and land management
systems, including land administration in different countries.
The United Nations, along with its subsidiary bodies and other international
organizations, acknowledges and recognizes secure tenure of housing as a
fundamental human right. Addressing the challenge of informal settlements is also
critical for the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals, particularly Target
11 on slums. Insufficient social and physical infrastructure and the lack of government
involvement to improve the conditions in some informal housing settlements are
the driving forces that contribute to extreme poverty, higher child mortality and
deteriorating urban conditions (UN-HABITAT, 2003).
In line with the principles of international agendas, this study builds upon the
fundamental human right to adequate housing, adequate legal and institutional
framewortks and, thus, to credit and economic improvement.
3 In the effort to help Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Kosovo (Serbia), Montenegro, Serbia and
the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia meet their Vienna Declaration commitments and improvetheir performance in the human settlements sector, the Stability Pact and UN-HABITAT joined forces and
initiated a “Regional Capacity Strengthening Programme for Urban Development and Housing (RCSP)”,
which is currently in its demonstration phase.
-
8/18/2019 SelfMadeCities_UNECE
29/139
CHAPTER 1 INFORMAL SETTLEMENTS IN THE UNITED
5
Typology and formation processes2.
Given the significant regional diversity of informal settlements, and hence different
understandings behind the definition of “informal settlement”, it is necessary to avoid
seeing such a complex phenomenon as two-dimensional (formal/or informal) only. Itis multidimensional nature and the whole spectrum of formality/informality that should
be taken into consideration. What is also required for better policy outcomes is the
development of a broader understanding of informal settlement formations.
At least two conceptualizations have usually been applied in discussions about
informal settlements: they may be defined as the narrow and broad understandings
of the informal settlements phenomenon. A narrow understanding is when the
consideration of informal settlements is dominated by the images from the Third
World, poverty and self-made housing areas. In particular, post-Soviet transitioncountries have limited knowledge of informal settlements, because housing in the
Soviet era was considered as a universal right, with the State providing housing and
basic infrastructure free-of-charge and centrally. With the commodification of access
to housing and facilities in these countries, residents have been experiencing degraded
standards of living, which also now represent a great challenge for policymakers. This
is why it is important to raise awareness and to develop a broad understanding of
the phenomenon as well as to suggest possible solutions. This study promotes a
broader understanding of the phenomenon of informal settlements in the member
countries; it considers informal settlements as certain living conditions and that theirspatial manifestation does not conform to formal rules, standards and institutions.
Based on the findings from the case studies, a typology of informal settlements has
been created (table 1). This typology is based on the generally agreed characteristics
(conditions) of informal settlements formations (e.g. informal/formal legal status,
secure/insecure tenure, bad/good physical conditions, access to basic infrastructure,
and safe/unsafe environment). Whether a given settlement/housing development is
formal or informal is judged based on the agreed characteristics, each representing
two opposite states (formal/informal, secure/insecure, etc.); however, it is not theseopposite states of each of the characteristics that are brought into consideration, but
rather the whole spectrum between them (see the typology graphs on the spectrum of
characteristics). Furthermore, the typology also includes other crucial characteristics
that have not usually been recognized, but that have shaped the quality of life in
informal settlements, namely socio-cultural, economic and political conditions. If
policy responses are to be effective and committed to sustainability, they should look
beyond the generally agreed characteristics to understand such deeper socio-cultural,
economic and political effects (see the typology graph on the spectrum of policy
responses). Effective outcomes of policy interventions to improve informal settlementswill depend on such deeper understanding of the phenomenon.
-
8/18/2019 SelfMadeCities_UNECE
30/139
SELF-M ADE C ITIES IN SEARCH OF SUSTAINABLE SOLUTIONS FOR INFORMAL SETTLEMENTS IN THE UNECE REGION
6
Table 1: Typology of informal settlements
NThe formal/informal
continuum
Distinctive
characteristics
Operational sub-categories
1 De jure: Illegal landoccupation, informal
housing with no planning
permits, not integrated
into
a broader urban
system
De facto: Relatively good
living standards, tolerated
(recognized)
Secure tenure,relatively good
quality residential
developments,
good access to
infrastructure; in some
cases integration
into master plans
could be achieved
over time, located in
city centres or peri-
urban areas; in some
cases evolved into
established vibrant
neighbourhoods
with viable rental
and homeownership
markets
Upgraded “squatter” settlements
2 De jure: legal title to, but
illegal subdivisions of
suburban land, housing
with no planning permits,built in violation of land
use plans, building
standards
De facto: Tolerated,
relatively good housing,
commodified and used
by developers to provide
housing to middle class
families
Can also include:
De jure: Occupation of
urban land with unclear
legal status, housing built
in violation of established
regulations
De facto: Good housing
conditions to provide
housing to upper-middle
class families; may beapproved but in most
cases is contested
Good-quality housing
(in some cases
luxurious) and access
to infrastructure,dwellings are not
only owner-occupied,
but include a
vibrant commercial
rental housing
sector, controlled
by individual
homeowners and
by speculative
developers
Unauthorized land developments
or illegal subdivisions on the
fringes of cities in South-Eastern
Europe—from Serbia to Bosniaand Herzegovina and Greece
Extra-urban settlements in
protected or recreation zones and
coastal areas
Unauthorized Infill housing
constructions in cities
-
8/18/2019 SelfMadeCities_UNECE
31/139
CHAPTER 1 INFORMAL SETTLEMENTS IN THE UNITED
7
NThe formal/informal
continuum
Distinctive
characteristics
Operational sub-categories
3 De jure: Temporary legal
residence
De facto: Unacceptable
living standards
Settlements, although
newer, often present
extremely poor living
conditions, generally
found in the urban
periphery, in pockets
of marginal land, or
close to collective
centres for refugees
Temporary housing/settlements for
refugees
Temporary structures, domiki,
small caravans set up in public
places.
Dormitories and damaged unsafe
housing as temporary shelter for
refugees
Former hotels, schools and
kindergartens converted to
temporary housing
4 De jure: Formal residential
areas developed on public
or private land
De facto: Inadequate
housing condition (not
meet minimum living
standards)
Degraded or
unsafe physical
conditions, unhealthy
or overcrowded
living conditions
(subdivision of
apartments, shared
facilities), poor
access to
infrastructure,
obsolete technicalsystems, location in
urban or peripheral
areas; secure tenure
might be a problem,
occupation by
homeowners/tenants
with weak economic
and political status,
or, in some cases,
by illegal migrants
Degrading multi-family housing
stock (includes private as well as
public housing stock)
Housing stock below safety
standards
Illegal use of basements and
attics of multi-family houses to
accommodate illegal migrants
Overcrowded housing (inadequateliving space for a growing family)
Deprived inner-city neighborhoods
with slum-like conditions originally
developed as planned areas with
high concentration of low-income
groups
5 De jure: Illegally occupied
private or public land,
spontaneous housing
De facto: Threat of
eviction, demolition,
multiple exclusion, self-
help response to limited
access to housing
Self-built substandard
housing units often
lack basic necessities,
sanitation and
running water (slums),
can grow towards
complex, organized
settlements, located
in peri-urban areas
and on public or
private land
Squatter settlements (e.g. shanty
towns, peri-urban settlements
and slums, baracas, favelas,
bidonvilles, gecekondu, chabolas )
Smaller pockets of informal
housing built illegally under
bridges and overpasses, and
on vacant plots of land close
to industrial zones and railway
reserves, river banks, landslides,waste dumps and landfill sites
-
8/18/2019 SelfMadeCities_UNECE
32/139
SELF-M ADE C ITIES IN SEARCH OF SUSTAINABLE SOLUTIONS FOR INFORMAL SETTLEMENTS IN THE UNECE REGION
8
In general, despite a great range of spatial manifestations across the UNECE
region, there are several major types of informal settlements:
Squatter settlements on public or private land;a.
Settlements for refugees and vulnerable people;b.
Upgraded squatter settlements;c.
Illegal suburban land subdivisions on legally owned private, with illegald.
changing of land-use regulations, often on the urban fringe;
Overcrowded, dilapidated housing without adequate facilities in city centerse.
or densely urbanized areas.
In different ways, all five types of informal settlements accommodate mainly
the needs of the urban poor or low-income and other disadvantaged groups, and
exacerbate their poverty. In several countries across the region, the formation of informal
settlements is not new but dates back to the 1950s and 1960s. Particularly, in Greece
Italy and Portugal, internal or external migrations have significantly contributed to the
urbanization processes. Moreover, in some cases, other reasons – such as unrealistic
regulations rather than poverty – have led to certain forms of informal construction
along coastlines and in holiday areas. In countries in Western and Southern Europe,
informal settlements are also due to the new waves of massive migration, caused by
poor economic situations in countries in transition and post-conflict areas.
In others, the informal settlements are fairly recent, but have become the dominant
form of urban growth in the 1990s. It is important to note that in some cases, residents
of some informal settlements are not necessarily poor; rather, the informality of the
development is used as the only way to overcome existing complex and time-
consuming planning and long delays in expanding of city plans and development
permitting procedures as well as unrealistic land management constraints. Of
course, there are cases where both individuals and developers have built housing
with speculative purposes, without any planning or building permit but on privatelyowned land acquired through legal means. In other words, many manifestations
of informal settlements across the region invoke images of poverty, exclusion and
despair, but there are certainly examples where this is not the case. These processes
producing different types of informal settlements should be well analysed, as different,
corresponding policy approaches might be necessary.
International literature also has useful examples to provide – for example, of
housing policies developed to support slum dwellers, by definition poor, that have
failed simply because of the profit-oriented nature of the settlers, who are willing to sellthe houses offered to them by the State, use the money to cover other needs, and
then go back to live in slums where the rest of their relatives live. All these cases, and
-
8/18/2019 SelfMadeCities_UNECE
33/139
CHAPTER 1 INFORMAL SETTLEMENTS IN THE UNITED
9
the experience gained from other countries, should be taken into consideration when
adopting policies to tackle the phenomenon of informal settlements.
Upgraded squatter settlements A.
Within the informal settlements across the region, there is a great variety ofsettlement patterns and historic circumstances. Some that started as squatter
settlements in the peri-urban areas in the 1960s (in Greece, Turkey and parts of the
former Yugoslavia) have evolved into more established neighborhoods. Skopje, for
example, has 27 illegally constructed neighbourhoods dating back to the earthquake
in the 1980s.
There is a risk that under such regeneration programmes priority may be given to
physical upgrading, with the result that other aspects important for “improving living
conditions” are neglected. It is essential to provide security of tenure and to deliverthe integration of informal settlements into the broader urban structure and society.
There is a great risk for marginalized people to be displaced either physically or by
market forces if a neighborhood regeneration strategy is isolated from complementary
policies.
On the other hand, there is evidence that a legalization process based on
recognition of freehold rights does not work either. These policies usually succeed in
so far as services become upgraded in informal settlement, but there is little evidence
that legalization of land rights actually takes place. Even if such policies achieveindividual security of tenure, they fail to integrate people and places into the broader
urban structure and society.
It is the legalization of housing rights that grants legal security of tenure, ensures
socio-spatial integration of people and communities and assures the rights of people
to stay in places after the transformation process. Recent regularization practices
have shown that alongside an effective system of tenure security, it is very important
to recognize the rights to adequate and affordable housing, especially for marginalized
groups. It is not simply individual property rights to which housing rights are related. A number of sustainable programmes that integrate both upgrading and legalization
have recently been reported. An integrated approach is argued to control both formal
and informal land markets. In this way, it is the residents of informal settlements
who will benefit from public investment, rather than the property developers or other
interests who do not fulfill their commitment to providing people with adequate and
affordable housing.
In Belgrade, informal settlements occupy 22 per cent of the land for construction
(see box 1), and in Istanbul, 70 per cent of the population lives in informal housing( gecekondu ). Variety also exists in the legal status of these settlements: while most
begin with an illegal occupation of land, over time some security of tenure is acquired
-
8/18/2019 SelfMadeCities_UNECE
34/139
SELF-M ADE C ITIES IN SEARCH OF SUSTAINABLE SOLUTIONS FOR INFORMAL SETTLEMENTS IN THE UNECE REGION
10
with a formally recognized legal title of land (e.g. in Serbia, and the former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia). In the case of Greece, the legal status in the majority of
cases was not squatting but full ownership of illegal sub-divided rural land, which over
the years was formally recognized. Due to various overlapping regulations and non-
compliance with planning norms, residents often lack planning permits.
Over time, de facto legality is implied by the fact that the settlements are not
demolished, (due to the lack of affordable housing policy), and that some infrastructure,
e.g. road networks, public transportation, piped water, electricity and sewer, space
for common use, etc, has been gradually provided (e.g. projects in Ankara, illegal
connections in Serbia, and in most cases in Greece). There are cases where these
settlements are included in the new master plans of cities, recognizing their alternative
development standards. Since the 1970s, tolerance towards squatter settlements has
grown and the numbers of forced evictions and demolitions have diminished. This hasenabled some of the more established settlements to develop rapidly, with residents
investing in their homes and improving the local environment. These upgraded
settlements are often vibrant neighborhoods with viable rental and homeownership
markets. In some of the Turkish gecekondu in Ankara and Istanbul, studies underline a
pattern of commodification, manifested in the replacement of older homes with multi-
storey, multi-family structures capitalizing on land values and locational advantages
(Carley 2001, Devecigil 2005).
Box 1: Upgrading informal settlements: Kalugerica, Serbia
Kaluderica is one of the fastest growing settlements in Serbia and arguably the
largest village in the Balkans. Located just 8 km away from Belgrade, it has grown rapidly
together with the city since the 1980s when it was home to 12,000 people. Its population
today is estimated at 50,000, accommodating the influx of the refugees from Bosnia and
Herzegovina, Croatia and Kosovo (Serbia). Although officially classified as a rural settlement,
five times the size of its municipal seat Grocka, Kalugerica is a city built by its residents in
an informal way. Most of the houses do not have a building permit, but the residents own
the land and it might be even registered in the cadastre. Over time, people have negotiated
connections to infrastructure, built roads and arranged for services by Belgrade’s City Public Transportation Company and Telekom Serbia.
Source: Belgrade Master Plan
-
8/18/2019 SelfMadeCities_UNECE
35/139
CHAPTER 1 INFORMAL SETTLEMENTS IN THE UNITED
11
Box 2: City profile: Milan, Italy
Those urban areas characterized by self-construction began to be called ‘Koreas’ due
to their visual similarity with images coming from the Korean War (Foot 2005)
After the Second World War, Italy experienced massive flows of domestic migration:
whole families left the poorer areas of the country to escape the widespread unemployment
affecting many Italian regions at the time.
In the metropolitan area of Milan, the population increased by 26 per cent between
1951 and 1971 (600,000 people in 20 years). This influx heavily impacted the city. Coming
from the south and north-east of Italy, and from the islands as well as from other areas of
Lombardy, immigrants faced difficulties in finding affordable shelter in Milan, and settled in
municipalities located in Milan’s immediate surroundings.
Often immigrants settled further from urban centres, in the countryside, both foreconomic (the price of urban accommodation was unaffordable) and social (easier
integration with the rural population) reasons.
This was the beginning of the “Koreas”, self-built urban villages located in the
countryside around the major urban centre starting the early 1950s. Such settlements
were characterized by small, single-family detached houses in small lots of different
shapes, without any formal organization, and in dense but dispersed aggregations. In a few
decades, small hamlets grew into urban settlements. For instance, in Bollate, in north Milan,
the population increased fourfold (from 9,625 to 42,770 between 1936 and 1971) and the
population of “Villaggio dei Giovi” in Limbiate, also in north Milan – one of the largest Koreansettlements – skyrocketed from 10 in 1945 to 13,000 in 1980.
The history of Korean settlements can be portrayed as a four-step process:
1. Early phase. First houses were built on legally purchased lots and settlements
grew around old pre-existing farmhouses or rural nuclei, with a chronic lack of all basic
infrastructures (e.g. sewerage, electricity, streets).
2. Development phase. Settlements rapidly expanded: the original small houses
quickly became larger and the settlement became more articulated, around straight
streets, forming spontaneous aggregations. The social hierarchy was fundamental to thisdevelopment. Many “older Korean” inhabitants rented parts of their houses to newcomers to
support additions and enlargements. Supporting networks of entrepreneurs, professionals
and real estate developers offered their services to the Koreas. Municipalities finally became
aware of the problem and began providing technical and service infrastructure to the new
settlements. Building permissions were secured relatively easily, as the only requirements
for buildings and lots to be legalized were the existence of “straight streets” and “hygienic
standards”.
3. Consolidation phase. Houses were rearranged and enlarged thanks to new waves
of immigration that increased the number of inhabitants. The original settlers, now landlords,moved to wealthier areas or to the upper floors of their houses, renting underutilized
-
8/18/2019 SelfMadeCities_UNECE
36/139
SELF-M ADE C ITIES IN SEARCH OF SUSTAINABLE SOLUTIONS FOR INFORMAL SETTLEMENTS IN THE UNECE REGION
12
rooms (e.g. canteens, garages and ground floors). In this phase, Koreas exhibited
the capacity to generate commercial and retail activities, reaching a higher level of self-
sufficiency. Telephone, street, electricity and sewage networks were also in place.
4. Ageing phase. In this current phase, beginning in the late 1980s and 1990s, theaverage population is perceptibly older, as younger generations have often moved away and
new immigrants have arrived from other countries. The local network of retail and services
has been wiped out by large commercial malls, which have cropped up everywhere in the
expanding urban fringe.
Bollate municipality, formed 50 years ago, is an interesting case study of a Korea
settlement. The area was favoured by immigration flows after the Second World War, due
to the advantageous conditions and its strategic position, located close to with Milan’s
industrial districts.
First Korean settlements in Bollate developed around two small rural settlements:
Cassina del Sole and Cassina Nuova. The first Korea, named St. Giuseppe, started in 1951
on the initiative of immigrants from the Veneto region. The community took off in 1953 with
the first wave of new immigrants from the south of Italy, with the most intense phase of
construction taking place between 1956 and 1960.
The southern part of the Korea started a bit later, when a first settlement was built in
1954, also by Veneti, not far from the Korea of St. Giuseppe. This new settlement began
growing intensively in 1956 when, again, new immigrants from the south colonized all the
undeveloped land. The local press began acknowledging the Koreas existence, with some
delay, in 1961.
Development of Bollate between 1955 and 2009
-
8/18/2019 SelfMadeCities_UNECE
37/139
CHAPTER 1 INFORMAL SETTLEMENTS IN THE UNITED
13
During this period, in Milan social housing interventions were pursued in many suburbs
to deal with further formation of informal settlements and to provide a more suitable housing
solution for the immigrants. One of these large social housing complexes followed a project
of a rather well-known Italian architect.
A few kilometres from the Korea “Sud” settlement, in Bollate, the complex is a single
600 m2, five-storey building with 160 dwellings served by eight external stairwells. As in
the Koreas, this complex is mainly inhabited by elderly and new foreign immigrants (many
of them illegal). Their living conditions here are very hard, and are considered to be much
worse than those of self-organized Koreas. Single elderly people must live in dwellings that
are too large for them. The buildings are extremely downgraded and in a bad structural
state. As tenants of the Social Housing Agency that owns the complex, inhabitants live their
environment in a totally passive manner as they leave all domestic issues to the Agency.
Integration of the complex with the surrounding urban centre of Bollate is extremely difficult.
The place is hardly safe, with many open-air means of access, and its open-air ground floor
is a vast abandoned space filled with rubbish.
The self-organized Korean settlements, however, seem to have withstood the test of
time far better than their institutional competitor, the award-winning Social Housing Project.
As a matter of fact, the Bollate Municipality had to invest a huge amount of resources to
revitalize the Project just three decades after its construction, while the Koreas have been
self-sustaining. Under pressure from inhabitants, which was manifested by a long local
process, the municipality decided to elect for complete demolition and rebuilding. However,
the architect himself opposed to this idea, and he applied to the National Authority for Built
Heritage, claiming that his masterpiece be formally listed as piece of art. He succeeded.
This prevented the demolition and a new restoration of the complex was proposed. As a
result, nothing has happened thus far, and the Project remains in a horrendous state and a
threat to its inhabitants.
This case illustrates the fact that upgraded informal settlements can sometimes
provide a better housing solution than massive social housing projects.
Streets of Bollate
-
8/18/2019 SelfMadeCities_UNECE
38/139
SELF-M ADE C ITIES IN SEARCH OF SUSTAINABLE SOLUTIONS FOR INFORMAL SETTLEMENTS IN THE UNECE REGION
14
Illegal subdivisionsB.
Some of the informal settlements in the region are not necessarily poor quality,
under serviced housing areas. Residents in these settlements often have a title to the
land, but the housing is built without a planning and/or building permit. Unauthorizedland developments or illegal subdivisions are widespread on the fringes of cities in
South-Eastern Europe—from Serbia to Bosnia and Herzegovina and Greece. Illegal
subdivisions refer to settlements where agricultural land has been subdivided and sold
by its legal owner to people who build their houses, often with self-help methods. Peri-
urban land is transformed to urban use by landowners without any official planning
permission and licenses. In some countries, the process has been commodified
and used by developers to provide housing to middle-class families (e.g. in Italy and
Turkey). The example in box 3 illustrates this process in Naples. The settlements are
illegal because they might violate land-use planning, the standard of infrastructureis low and the land subdivision often does not meet planning standards for right-
of-way, road access and provision of public space. Nevertheless, the housing built,
while often constructed with permanent materials, may not meet building standards.
In practice, these settlements are often tolerated due to populist politics and legalized
though incorporation in the city’s urban plan over time. It is important to mention that
mass legalization has never been applied in Greece without an urban regeneration
programme. Legalization has occurred only after the integration into the city plan
and only after the completion of the necessary environmental improvements and
infrastructure provisions, and most importantly, only after an individual inspection ofthe soundness of each construction and examination of its environmental impact. This
is the major difference between the approaches used in Albania, Italy and Turkey and
the Greek approach.
Most occupants of illegal subdivisions build, extend and improve their own housing
over time. In practice, not all dwellings in such settlements are owner-occupied; they
tend to be part of a vibrant rental housing market, controlled by individual homeowners
and by speculative developers. Private-sector (developers’) involvement must be
formalized.Similar examples of illegal subdivisions across the region are associated with
extra-urban settlements in recreation zones and coastal areas. The problem seems
to appear in Albania, Croatia, Cyprus Greece, Italy and Spain, where such responses
may be driven by profit and speculative investment in a growing market for vacation
homes, but also first residences in a better environment. These may be low-density
housing developments in rural areas, with construction of good quality.
It is worth mentioning here the innovative approach applied in the municipality
of Keratea (not a wealthy area), in Greece (Potsiou and Dimitriadi 2008), wherethe regeneration and expansion of city plans and the provision of the necessary
improvements are all fully funded by the owners. This fact proves that people in
-
8/18/2019 SelfMadeCities_UNECE
39/139
CHAPTER 1 INFORMAL SETTLEMENTS IN THE UNITED
15
general, even if not rich, are willing to pay in order to legalize their status and improve
their neighborhoods. Often it is unrealistic procedures and long delays that invite an
illegal approach.
Figure 1: Typology of upgraded settlements and illegal suburban land subdivisions
E n v i r o n
m e n t
f o r m a l
i n f o r m a l
s e c u r e
i n s e c u r e
p o o r s u b s t a n d a r d ,
a c c e s s t o i n f r a s t r u c t u r e
h i g h s t a n d a r d s ,
a c c e s s t o
i n f r a s t r u c t u r e
w e a l t h , p r e s t i g e
d e p r i v a t i o n ,
d i s r e s p e c t
i n c l u s i o n
E x c l u s i o n
Substandard, overcrowded, decrepit
and below safety standards housing
estates in cities
Settlements for refugees and vulnerable
people
Upgraded squatter settlements
(relatively good-quality residential
developments in city centres or peri-
urban areas)
Squatter settlements on public or
private land (slums)
Illegal suburban land subdivisions on
private or public land (relatively good-
quality residential developments in
peri-urban areas)
Spectrum of responses
S e c u r i t y o f
L e g a l s
t a t u s
t e n u r e
S o c i o -
e c o n o m i c ,
c u l t u r a
l
P o l i t i c a l
p a r t i c i p a t i o n
Require less substantive analysis,
address visible character istics
Require substantive analysis of socio-cultural andpolitical problematic of IS residence
S p e c
t r u m
o f c
h a r
a c
t e r i s
t i c s
I n b e t w e e
n
P h y s i c
a l
1
2
s a f e , u n p o l l u t e d
h a z a r d o u s , p o l l u t e d
Box 3: Illegal subdivisions in Naples, Italy
Illegally constructed neighborhoods in Naples house middle-class families. The best
known case is Pianura, a neighbourhood that sprung up during the 1980s, when five- to
seven-storey buildings were built without authorization from the city in an area classified as
agricultural. The development is illegal in the technical sense of having no building permits
and violating the zoning plan; but the land was legally bought by private developers who
built the housing in compliance with existing building standards. The housing was sold
at prices only 15–20 per cent below the cost of legal units. With the connivance of the
authorities, the development was linked to the public water and electricity system, and later
to the sewerage system. Growth in Pianura is still strong – increasing from 38,500 residentsin 1981 to 54,000 in 1991, with higher homeownership rates than the city average. This
type of illegal construction is widespread outside of the centre of Naples, leading to the
emergence of many residential areas of different scale.
Source: UN-HABITAT, 2003: 84.
-
8/18/2019 SelfMadeCities_UNECE
40/139
SELF-M ADE C ITIES IN SEARCH OF SUSTAINABLE SOLUTIONS FOR INFORMAL SETTLEMENTS IN THE UNECE REGION
16
Settlements for vulnerable groupsC.
Recently developed informal settlements by refugees and internally displaced
persons (IDPs) across the UNECE region are often similar to the squatter type, but
they might have been established with the permission of the State or the municipalityas a temporary, rapid response to a major crisis, such as the war-related conflicts in
Armenia, Azerbaijan, Cyprus and the Balkans. These settlements, although newer,
often present extremely poor living conditions. Often, residents expected to stay only